On 03/14, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > oom_kill_process() simply sets TIF_MEMDIE and returns if PF_EXITING. > > This is very wrong by many reasons. In particular, this thread can > > be the dead group leader. Check p->mm != NULL. > > Explain more, please. Maybe I'm missing some context because I wasn't > cc'd on the original thread, but PF_EXITING gets set by exit_signal(), > and exit_mm() is called almost immediately afterwards which will set > p->mm to NULL. > > So afaik, this will basically just remove the whole point of the code > entirely - so why not remove it then? I am afraid I am going to lie... But iirc I tried to remove this code before. Can't find the previous discussion, probably I am wrong. Anyway. I never understood why do we have this special case. > The combination of testing PF_EXITING and p->mm just doesn't seem to > make any sense. To me, it doesn't make too much sense even if we do not check ->mm. But. I _think_ the intent was to wait until this "exiting" process does exit_mm() and frees the memory. This is like the "the process of releasing memory " code in select_bad_process(). Once again, this is only my speculation. In any case, this patch doesn't pretend to be the right fix. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>